Credible threat of more cowardly attack on 9-11-01.

[powderman]

http://news.yahoo.com/u-sees-credible-unconfirmed-terrorism-threat-000206574.html
 
 
As long as islam exists the entire world is in danger. Their thirst for innocent blood will not be sated til Jesus returns. POWDERMAN. 

[Graybeard]

Why is it the term cowards or cowardly always seems to be used in conjunction with terrorist attacks? What is cowardly about risking life and limb to attack a foe more powerful than you?

If we are to believe the official version of the 9-11 story the terrorists willingly gave up their lifes to do the damage. How can that be defined as cowardly?

Never have understood the thinking on that.

[Stillkickin]

I always saw the "coward" adjective applicable to those planners and schemers operating from hidden locations to send others, including women and children, off to sacrifice THEIR lives for the cause.

[powderman]

I call em cowards because they planned sneak attacks against civilians and usually pick on soft targets they know cannot fight back. A back stabber is a coward, afraid to face his intended victim. Facing an enemy in battle is one thing, wholesale slaughter against innocent civilians is different. They see no risk to themselves because they believe that their allah will reward them, a lie of course. Murderers don't go to Heaven, God will not reward them as they have been told. Doesn't take a brave man to do that, it takes a very sick cowardly one. POWDERMAN. 

[SwampThing762]

They are cowards because they refuse to participate in a fair, stand-up fight.  I seem to recall the Bible verse about knowing them by their fruits....

[yellowtail3]

I always saw the "coward" adjective applicable to those planners and schemers operating from hidden locations to send others...

Well, then, that could be applied to political leaders & upper echelon military, who never go into harms way but make plans and send others.

They are cowards because they refuse to participate in a fair, stand-up fight.

That's silly. If you and I were to scrap, and I've got a 12GA and you've got a .22 Jennings, would you be a coward for refusing to meet in an open field in a 'fair, stand-up fight'? No, you'd be prudent, and would find another method. Using your definition... maybe some could say our troops are cowards? They fight (in Afghanistan) against a bunch of guys with horses and small arms. What do our guys show up with? Body armor & rifles with expensive optics. They have intel gathered by drones, satellites, and whatnot; they have the on-call support of airpower and its obscenely expensive logistical tail, the best firepower money can buy.  If they get in trouble, perhaps a helo full of helpful cavalry and a flock of A10s and F-15Es with PGMs will pull them out of the fire. All against guys with rifles with iron sights, and maybe a few RPGs and machine guns... no helos, no satellites, no largest economy in the world, no F-15Es to back them up.

I call em cowards because they planned sneak attacks against civilians and usually pick on soft targets they know cannot fight back.

Maybe when LeMay firebombed nigh-defenseless Japanese cities in the spring of '45, rather than have the Marines march ashore at Yokusuka with nothing but Garands in hand, he was being a coward? He knew the Imperial air arm was kaput, and those civilians on the ground couldn't fight back against B-29s loaded with incendiaries (let along nukes).

here's what these references to i][cowards[/i] are: a distortion of the word, and insult de jour, nothing more.

quiz: were the guys who tried to sink the USS Cole cowards?

[magooch]

How about senseless, stupid, insane, radical--use whichever word you like to describe terrorists, it doesn't justify what they do, or change what our response should be.  Just don't ask me to glorify them in any way shape, or form